Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
In my last IDC Quarterly article, I discussed the use of Supreme Court Rule 383, which governs
requests for exercise of the court’s supervisory authority. For this issue, I thought it would be
appropriate to discuss the other direct means for obtaining Supreme Court review of the actions of a
trial judge, Rule 381, which governs writs of mandamus and prohibition. 188 Ill. 2d R. 381, 383. Both
rules provide for original actions and are considered extraordinary remedies; relief is afforded
infrequently. People ex rel. Modern Woodmen of America v. Circuit Court of Washington County, 347
Ill. 34, 39, 179 N.E. 441 (1931). In 1999, for example, only 93 such pleadings were filed with the
court, down from 109 the year prior.
Generally speaking, direct review to the Supreme Court is to be invoked only when a suitable
remedy cannot be obtained through the normal appellate process. Kellerman v. Crowe, 119 Ill. 2d 111,
518 N.E.2d 116, 115 Ill. Dec. 591 (1987). Rules 381 and 383 have their own unique purposes and
scenarios in which they are applicable; it is not uncommon,
however, for a party to file both, in the alternative, as a precaution. Neither provision contains an
automatic stay provision, which necessitates the filing of a concurrent motion to stay enforcement of
the circuit court’s order both during the pendency of the Rule 381 motion and its disposition.
Page 1 of 3
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL 62791
IDC Quarterly Vol. 12, No. 1 (12.1.75)
disposition of the issues presented would lead to public confusion, inconvenience, or fail to promote
substantial justice. People ex rel. Ryan v. Retirement Board Of Firemen’s Annuity & Beneficiary
Fund, 136 Ill. App. 3d 818, 483 N.E.2d 1037, 91 Ill. Dec. 551 (1st Dist. 1985). In any event, the
movant must show a clear legal right to the relief requested. Kramer v. City of Chicago, 58 Ill. App.
3d 592, 598, 374 N.E.2d 932, 16 Ill. Dec. 157 (1st Dist. 1978).
Page 2 of 3
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL 62791
IDC Quarterly Vol. 12, No. 1 (12.1.75)
support of the pleadings; alternatively, the party filing may elect to stand on his or her original papers
as the brief. 188 Ill. 2d R. 381(e).
The exact number of copies and method of filing depends in part on whether the court is in session.
If in session, papers are due in the Springfield office; if not in session, and the case arises from the
second, third, fourth, or fifth judicial district, the movant must file the original and one copy with the
clerk in Springfield, and send a copy to each justice of the court at the justice’s home district office.
188 Ill. 2d R. 381(a). If the case arises from the first judicial district, the movant must file the original
and five copies with the clerk in the Supreme Court’s Chicago office, and send a copy to each of the
remaining justices in their respective district offices. 188 Ill. 2d R. 381(a).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Brad A. Elward is a partner in the Peoria office of Heyl, Royster, Voelker &
Allen. He practices in the area of appellate law, with a sub-concentration in workers’ compensation appeals
and asbestos-related appeals. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana, in 1986 and his law degree from Southern Illinois University School of Law in 1989.
Mr. Elward is a member of the Illinois Appellate Lawyers Association, the Illinois State, Peoria County,
and American Bar Associations, and a member of the ISBA Workers’ Compensation Section Counsel.
Page 3 of 3